I was looking at the two series in the playoffs right now and could really see how great and important superstars really are, as they have always been. Lebron has been absolutely huge for Miami, quite a bit more than Wade against the Celts so for. Durant likewise against the Spurs. Rondo has been huge for the Celts and Parker, who is not really a superstar but close most of the time, has been huge for the Spurs all playoffs.

The Warriors don't have a superstar, not even a current allstar. The team is not an attractive place at the moment, so not a real destination on any superstar's mind. Though the current roster, adding the #7 pick, looks playoff caliber at least, it certainly is not championship caliber, even at it's best I think. To be a contender the team will need a superstar, as there have not been many teams in as long as I can remember that have been among the top 5 teams and not had a superstar.

We can throw out trades, far fetched or not so much, but the truth is that only a superstar looking to leave his current team is any possibility, as they always hold less value than they usually have and will want out almost no matter what the longer time goes by.

I think the only way the team can be attractive to any sort of superstar is to trade for an allstar first. As an example, if the team traded for JSmith, an allstar in the minds of most people this season, though snubbed ridiculously, a player like Dwight would look at the team situation more favourably. If Ainge was stupid enough to let Rondo go for something like Curry and filler, like Rush and not the #7 pick, the team would look alot better and again, more attractive after such a smart move acquiring a star PG that is well deservingly getting alot of attention right now.

You replace Lee with JSmith on the team or get Rondo for Curry and bench filler or both moves, then give a fair truckload to get a resigned Dwight, like Bogut, #7, Klay and future 1st rounder, the team then looks like a championship contender. All three moves do not look lopsided talent wise, not looking at it with biased view, yet the team situation looks much better, with at least one superstar and one allstar.

Almost all the championship teams of the past have had at least one superstar playing at that level and this season is no different. The team will not be a contender until we have at least one superstar, so getting one as soon as possible is a must.

I'm just gonna ask one question here. Who is the superstar in San Antonio?

Team ball will always beat a team with one go to guy. The problem is that too many GMs believe that they need a superstar, and they continuously destroy teams with potential, cause they are trying to find a superstar player, and they usually get a guy with big numbers, cause he played on a good team, and isn't a game changer (read, David Lee). The point is to let a good team play at least 2 years together, and you'll see why Pop is killing the other teams with Spurs. They are just a bit old...but Pop is getting the guys to fill the positions, in few years, Leonard and Greene will do what Manu and S-Jax are doing, and new guys will fill their bench places.

Oh, and let us not forget one another big thing, since I mentioned Popovich, you need a coach, a good coach, with a vision, and knowledge what the teams is and how it should look like, and then give him time to make that team. If you wanna have a team that is a contender, you need a coach, not a preacher or a priest. Ask the 49ers.

Exactly. Sloan wants to coach again. Why not hire him for 3 years and demote MJ as an assistant. It will be a great learning experience for him and he would be ready when Sloan finally retires to be real coach.

Again, take a look at pretty much all the champions of the past and you'll see at least one superstar on thos teams. As for San Antonio, Duncan is still a superstar, but he isn't playing like one, at least not all the time, I'd say half the time. Parker is superstar like and I think he is as effective as the likes of CP, Deron and Westbrook most of the time. Ginobili himself plays better than most SGs there is right now, so that's three guys who play up to superstar level about half the time. That's better than the Celtic "former" big three", much better in fact.

The other ingredient to a championship caliber team is a very good coach, but you look at the Heat's coach and he is nothing special, at least hadn't done anything special before taking over as coach of Miami and even then, it's not a hard job when you have three superstars, two of them among the best five players currently in the nba. Jerry Slaon wants to be an nba coach again, I'd have him, in a heart beat too. The team is built for him as well. Maybe he can make a great PG out of Curry and use the Lee/Bogut combo real well also. But, even Sloan hasn't won championships and he had Stockton, a superstar PG for about half of his career at least and Karl Malone, a superstar every year he was with the Jazz except maybe his rookie season.

You need at least one superstar and surround him with pretty good players ofcourse. Thing is, when you get that superstar, the team becomes more attractive to other good players as well.

Winning a championship without a superstar is like getting into Oxford by way of a public high school.

Sure, it happens - occasionally - but if you're looking to be in the mix year in and year out, as migya wrote: you need a star.

The question in Golden State is: if Steph Curry can stay healthy and make minor improvements to the point where he's putting up 23 points, 7 assists, 3.5 boards, and 2 steals a night... Is that a superstar? Those look like superstar numbers to me, but don't forget that Monta and Baron put up similar (if not better) numbers than those and didn't get a single all-star nod in Golden State.

Is David Lee a superstar? Seems like a good piece to me, but not quite a star. Lee puts up the numbers, says the right things, walks the walk... But I can't see him being that guy you throw the ball into with 4 seconds left to make something happen (and I think I give Lee more offensive credit than just about anyone).

Is Klay Thompson a star... Or, more to the point, can he grow into one? It's no secret he was substantially worse when teams turned him into a dribbler at the end of last year. Sure, the jumper's wet. But is Klay Thompson someone you can see fighting through tight coverage to put up 25 in a playoff game? And seeing as he's almost exclusively a scorer, 25 is the bar for Klay if he wants the reigns to the team.

Lastly, is Andrew Bogut a superstar? Or is he a glue guy in the mold of Tyson Chandler; a guy not concerned with numbers and purely focused on results? I don't mind that method; it makes for a winning culture of basketball... But if that's true, why has Andrew Bogut only played in 5 playoff games since being drafted in 2005 (amidst competition in the Leastern Conference, no less)? Why did the fans in Milwaukee (typically informed, passionate fans) turn on Bogut and run him out of town; to the point where he was waging a Twitter war with the "negative naysayers"?

And food for thought is: if none of the above can prove to be a first level franchise player, is there anyone the Warriors can draft or trade for with that #7 pick who fits the bill?

I think superstar tag comes along with winning. Right now we don't have any all-stars but if we got into the playoffs I'm sure people like Lee, Bogut, and Curry will get considerations. Luol Deng is a good player, but is he all-star caliber? Probably not, but since he's on a team with the best record in the NBA, he got considerations. Same goes to players like Hibbert, Ginobli, and Parker. All of these players are great, but I bet if they weren't on a winning team, there's no way these players get all-star considerations. We have all-star caliber players on our team, they just won't be recognized until we start winning.

With The Spurs, they do not have a single superstar on that team. What they have is a hand full of great players that play astoundingly great together. Every player in their rotation knows their role and they play it to the extreme. I guess what I'm trying to say is that superstars go a long way, but it's not the only way you can win. Things like role players,coaching, leadership, and team chemistry are just as important as having a superstar. Would Durant be where he is without players like Ibaka and Harden? Would Nowitzki have a ring without Chandler, Terry, and Kidd? It's all about how you put things together.

Indeed, 8th ave, that's what I was saying. Duncan, Ginobili and Parker are not superstars, go check their mentions on the internet, and than compare that to Kobe, LeBron, Howard, etc. I'm still of a belief that you can win with good players who spend enough time together that they know each other real good, up to a point where they know what the other guy would do in that moment, without giving them (or receiving from them) a sign. That is a true basketball. Not a superstar that will get foul calls, and that will go to the FT line 20+ times a game. That can work today, with this garbage from refereeing, but that will pass some time as well.

I dunno, dudes. I'd definitely say Durant and Duncan are superstars (even if TD isn't what he used to be, you can't tell me he's not a superstar).

The role player mention is a chicken-or-the-egg argument. Do players like Ibaka and Harden MAKE their star's that noticeable... or do they get more TV run cause they play on Kevin Durant's team? More to the point, if you swapped Durant for David Lee, how good do players like Curry and Bogut suddenly look?

In my opinion, the stars are the reasons role players don't have to play outside their comfort zone and can just contribute in their strong areas (without the scrutiny that guys like LeBron and Kobe take). Nobody seems to rag on Ibaka for not having ANY offensive game, but if LeBron puts on a 30-12-11 game and misses the game winning shot, evvvveryone is talking about what a choker he is.

It's kind of a double standard. If we evaluated stars with the same openness we judge role players with, this wouldn't even be a conversation. For Chrissakes, we've already got people swinging from Klay Thompson's balls and he was an 8 PPG bench player for the majority of the season. But if he was given the keys to the team and only put up 17 points, the Bay would turn on him. Look at the posts in this forum regarding Monta Ellis from 2006 and then again in 2011. He got lambasted while improving in every tangible category.

Yea, 32 said it right, superstars, most of them anyway, make their teammates better.

To build a champion team, you need the pieces and though it would look nice to have a team with five allstar types making the team win some 60 games a season and the championship as well, that rarely happens. The Pistons with Billups, Hamilton and the Wallaces is the last team I remember doig that and probably the only team I can remember actually.

Imagine, the team traded for Rondo this offseason giving Curry and Rush. Right there that makes the team quite a bit better, if not alot better and brings alot of attention and attractiveness as well. Now, I could see a player like Dwight, with a moth or two left before the season starts and the Magic FO even more strongly rumoured to trade him to any team that gives them enough back, seeing the Warriors as a good place to go. The team manages to pull off the second dream trade, obviously alot more of a dream, by getting a resigned for at least three seasons Dwight, giving Bogut, #7 and #30, DWright for salary, and that roster now has a superstar Center and a allstar, I think some time superstar, PG, added to Lee, Klay and the rest. The team would have given up talent to get talet, so not so far fetched, but yet it all looks much better, because you have a superstar and also an allstar. That's championship caliber and also attractive to other good players who would now want to come here. Clippers did similar thing last offseason getting CP and Billups.

Getting a superstar is easier said than done. How many are there out there? Not every team has one and ones that do won't just let them go. And if you look at the majority of superstar players, they were drafted by their teams. Guys like Kevin Durant, Dwight Howard, Kobe Bryant and Dwayne Wade. There are exceptions like Lebron James, Chris Bosh and others who basically bolted at free agency and there are the very few like Carmelo Anthony that gets traded. Attaining one is a task and finding one that is available is even more of one.

32 wrote:I dunno, dudes. I'd definitely say Durant and Duncan are superstars (even if TD isn't what he used to be, you can't tell me he's not a superstar).

The role player mention is a chicken-or-the-egg argument. Do players like Ibaka and Harden MAKE their star's that noticeable... or do they get more TV run cause they play on Kevin Durant's team? More to the point, if you swapped Durant for David Lee, how good do players like Curry and Bogut suddenly look?

In my opinion, the stars are the reasons role players don't have to play outside their comfort zone and can just contribute in their strong areas (without the scrutiny that guys like LeBron and Kobe take). Nobody seems to rag on Ibaka for not having ANY offensive game, but if LeBron puts on a 30-12-11 game and misses the game winning shot, evvvveryone is talking about what a choker he is.

It's kind of a double standard. If we evaluated stars with the same openness we judge role players with, this wouldn't even be a conversation. For Chrissakes, we've already got people swinging from Klay Thompson's balls and he was an 8 PPG bench player for the majority of the season. But if he was given the keys to the team and only put up 17 points, the Bay would turn on him. Look at the posts in this forum regarding Monta Ellis from 2006 and then again in 2011. He got lambasted while improving in every tangible category.

I wasn't saying that role players made the superstars or vice versa, I was just saying the having a superstar is just a small piece of the puzzle. Same goes with coaching, role players, chemistry, etc. You can have a great coach, but if you don't have the players, it won't mean much. If you have 3 superstars but don't have coaching, chemistry, leadership, and role players, it still won't mean anything. You have to have a little bit everything.

Miggy was saying that this team needed a superstar. I'm saying this team might already have a superstar. If you still consider someone like Tim Duncan a superstar, maybe Bogut could be a superstar if he averages 15ppg, 10rpg, 2bpg, and we get the 2nd best record in the NBA am i right? It's probably not going to happen, but like what guybrush was saying: the title superstar is a little subjective.

Personally I think I'd rather win a championship the way Detroit did. I don't think winning it the way Miami is trying to win it will be as satisfying. Honestly I'd die happy if I see the Warriors winning the championship in my lifetime either way.

My point is that without a superstar, there likely will never be a championship here. Getting one is the hard thing, but even if you give up alot to get one, you can always add pieces around that superstar after you get him. It worked for Miami getting Shaq and another example was Phoenix getting Barkley back 1992-93, they didn't win the championship, but made it to the finals for the last time.

I just think with new ownership, Jerry West the geius now here giving advice and having attained a great Center, the team has the pieces to attain at least one superstar, maybe an allstar to go alongside him. I think getting Rodo could be realistic, not sure how much Ainge values him right ow, but if RAllen goes and KG as well, they'll need players, so getting Curry and Rush or Curry Rush and the #30 might do it for Ainge and that'd be an upgrade for us. With Lee having close to his best season, Klay playing well at the end of the season the way he did and with the #7, the FO has a real chance to make one or two BIG moves that set the team up for contending or close to it for at least five or six years.

It is realistic to get a very good SF and/or trade for an allstar caliber player like JSmith. It is more farfetched to get Dwight, but if one or two moves were made first, like getting Rondo like I said and maybe getting JSmith for Lee (as an example), Dwight would see here being much more attractive. Now is the best time it looks.

And while we can all agree that a star player is only part of the equation, I'd wager it's the hardest piece to find. I'd love to win like Detroit; we already have a screen-runner like Hamilton (Thompson), a shooting point like Billips (Curry), a dynamic duo front court with a top 3 defensive center (like the Wallace's), and a lanky, versatile, defensive wing like Prince (McGuire).

The last part of the puzzle was Coach Larry Brown, though. As much as I think Jackson deserves a second year to prove himself, I also dunno if he's in LB's league. He needs to be better about calling timeouts and stopping the other team's run from the sidelines, not to mention his claim about fixing the team's defensive woes is far from complete.

And while we can all agree that a star player is only part of the equation, I'd wager it's the hardest piece to find. I'd love to win like Detroit; we already have a screen-runner like Hamilton (Thompson), a shooting point like Billips (Curry), a dynamic duo front court with a top 3 defensive center (like the Wallace's), and a lanky, versatile, defensive wing like Prince (McGuire).

The last part of the puzzle was Coach Larry Brown, though. As much as I think Jackson deserves a second year to prove himself, I also dunno if he's in LB's league. He needs to be better about calling timeouts and stopping the other team's run from the sidelines, not to mention his claim about fixing the team's defensive woes is far from complete.

Great analogy you make to the Piston team that had won a championship with Larry Brown as their head coach. As Warrior fans, we should not overlook that last year's draft was both solid as well as impactful; Thompson, Jenkins and Tyler are NBA-quality players with lots of upside (I particularly like how Coach Jackson uses Thompson running off of screens on the offensive end of the floor (much like how the Pistons had used Hamilton and how the Pacers had used Reggie Miller and how this current Celtic team uses Ray Allen)), see Jenkins as a good role player backing up Curry, and Tyler as a potential monster in the middle. The team is deficient at small forward (funny how you had mentioned Prince, the player that the Warriors should have drafted instead of Dunleavy (Amar'e Stoudemire and Caron Butler were also available in that draft, too)), but might be able to pick up Lamar Odom (I don't know if this would be a great acquisition; however, it is an improvement over Dorell Wright). My question to the board has to do with Brandon Rush. I like the way this kid plays. Is there any reason why he would not be ready to step up and start for the team at small forward? All I ever saw from the kid last season was hustle and production.

Also, while I would have liked to have seen the team hire an already-established veteran winner for head coach, it does make sense for the team to have a younger head coach like Coach Jackson. The team did improve on defense and the Cohan-Mullin-Nelson stench is finally going away.